Journal of Scientific Research & Reports

4(5): 473-479, 2015; Article no.JSRR.2015.050

ISSN: 2320-0227

SCIENCEDOMAIN international
www.sciencedomain.org

Effect of Different Plyometric Training on

Biomechanical Parameters of Junior Male Volleyball
Players
Ali Fattahi1*, Hojat Kazemini2, Mahdi Rezaei3, Mazaher Rahimpour4,
Mehrnoosh Bahmani5, Saeid Saleh Nia4, Mitra Ameli6 and Mohsen Einanloo5
1

Department of Physical Education and Sport Science, Islamic Azad University, Central Tehran
Branch, Tehran, Iran.
2
Islamic Azad University, Nazar Abad center, Iran.
3
Department of Physical Education and Sport Science, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran.
4
Department of Physical Education, Firoozkooh Branch, Islamic Azad University, Firoozkooh, Iran.
5
Faculty of Physical Education, Karaj branch, Islamic Azad University, Alborz, Iran.
6
Department of Physical Education, Payam-E-Noor University, Tehran, Iran.
Authors contributions
This work was carried out in collaboration between all authors. All authors read and approved the
final manuscript.
Article Information
DOI: 10.9734/JSRR/2015/13596
Editor(s):
(1) Vito Di Maio, Institute of Cybernetics "E. Caianiello" CNR, C / O Complex Olivetti, Via Campi Flegrei, 34, Italy.
Reviewers:
(1) Andrea borghini, Institute of clinical physiology- CNR, Pisa- Italy.
(2) Anonymous, Istituto Auxologico Italiano, Italy,
Complete Peer review History: http://www.sciencedomain.org/review-history.php?iid=744&id=22&aid=6799

th

Original Research Article

Received 25 August 2014

Accepted 16th October 2014
th
Published 5 November 2014

ABSTRACT
The aim of this study was to compare the effect of eight weeks of aquatic and land plyometric
training on some biomechanical variables including agility, leg muscle strength, and vertical jump
test in young male volleyball players. Forty five young male volleyball players (Age=19.462.39
years, Standing height=190.763.78 cm, Body Mass=77.272.65 kg, Sport background=3.930.72
years) volunteered in this study and divided to three groups; aquatic plyometric group (APG), land
plyometric group (LPG) and control group (CG). APG trained spike approach, one leg bounding,
squat jump, depth jump and LPG trained ankle jumps, squat jumps, and depth jump 3 times a week
for 8 weeks. Both groups trained pre season volleyball training as well as control group. Data were
analyzed by one way analysis of variance and paired t-test. The results showed significant
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
*Corresponding author: Email: fattahiali81@gmail.com;

Fattahi et al.; JSRR, 4(5): 473-479, 2015; Article no.JSRR.2015.050

differences between the APG and LPG groups in all variables (P<0.05). Significant increases were
observed in post training of APG in all variables and for LPG group in leg press and vertical jump
records compare to pre training (P<0.05). There was a significant difference in relative
improvement between the APG and CG in leg press, agility and vertical jump as well as significant
differences between LPG and CG in leg press and vertical jump (P<0.05). It seems that plyometric
training in water can be an effective technique to improve biomechanical variables in young
athletes.

Keywords: Plyometric; aquatic; volleyball; biomechanics.

1. INTRODUCTION
Biomechanical variables such as muscle
strength, power, agility and speed are considered
as critical elements for successful athletic
performance [1,2,3] as well as for carrying out
daily activities and occupational tasks [4,5].
Volleyball is one of the sports characterized by
many of the basic and variable skills. Special
physical preparation of volleyball players is of the
main components to carry out successful and
skillful performance. In volleyball certain physical
motor abilities such as muscular power and
strength, speed, agility are needed for a
successful player [6].
In the field of training, there is a new technique
emerged similar to the nature of performing
volleyball skills by developing the ability of
vertical jump, which is called plyometric as it
includes stretching muscles (while perform it)
followed by a direct fast muscle contraction [7].
Plyometric training or stretch-shortening cycle
would improve performance of the concentric
phase of movement [8] as well as increase
power output [9,10,11] by evoking the elastic
properties of the muscle fibers and connective
tissue by allowing the muscles to store and
release energy during the deceleration and
acceleration phases, respectively [12,13]. Great
Benefits of plyometric training have been
observed such as increase in muscular strength
and explosive power [3,10,12,14,15] sprint ability
[16], joint function and stability [11,17,18],
reduced incidence of serious knee injuries
[17,19], and running economy [20].
Despite the numerous benefits associated with
high-impact, high-intensity land-based plyometric
training, certain recommendations should be
considered due to the possibility exists for this
type of training to induce acute muscle soreness,
muscle damage, or even musculoskeletal injuries
[21,22,23].

The effects of plyometric training on different

surfaces like sand, grass and wood on
performance with reducing injuries were
investigated [24,25]. Some investigators have
recommended that performing plyometric training
in water, swimming pool or aquatic plyometric
training (APG) would be more safe and efficient.
Because of buoyancy provided in aquatic
environment, weight bearing stress on the limbs
is decreased, thus it seems that water reduce the
pressure put on the musculoskeletal system.
Performing plyometric training in water and land
and their results on physical abilities such as
power, vertical jump, speed, strength, agility and
muscle soreness were studies by some authors
[7,26,27,28]. Miller et al. [29] compared the
effects of 8-week of APG and land plyometric
training (LPG) on physical fitness parameters
and showed increase in muscle power only in
ATP group as well as no significant improvement
in vertical jump of both groups. Martel et al. [7]
reported significant improvements in concentric
peak torque during knee extension and flexion at
60 and180s-1 after 6-week of Aquatic
plyometric training. Robinson et al. [26] showed
significant increases in vertical jump, Isokinetic
torque and sprint velocity as well as significantly
less soreness following 8-weeks of Aquatic
plyometrics training in healthy college-aged
women. Shiran et al. [28] reported that 5-week of
APG provide similar benefits in physical
performance with less muscle soreness in
professional male wrestlers comparing with land
plyometric training.
Despite the important findings, no documented
researches have compared the effects of
plyometric training on biomechanical variables in
athletes engaged in certain sports such as
volleyball in aquatic environment. Considering
different results of performing plyometric training
on different surfaces like water and land, the
present study was conducted to determine
whether adding Aquatic plyometric or Land
plyometric training to traditional volleyball training

474

Fattahi et al.; JSRR, 4(5): 473-479, 2015; Article no.JSRR.2015.050

leads to larger increases in some biomechanical

variables comparing traditional volleyball training.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1 Subjects
45 junior male volleyball players from Alborz
State of Iran participated in this study. The
participants and their legal guardians were
informed about the aims, nature, potential risks
and benefits of the study. The participants then
provided written informed consent. The study
protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee
of the Department of Sport Sciences, Kharazmi
University and the procedures were executed
according
Helsinki
Declaration
(1957).
Participants were excluded from the study if they
had current or recent past musculoskeletal
injuries, cardiovascular disease, uncontrolled
metabolic disorders such as diabetes mellitus, or
a fear of water. After participating in
biomechanical pre tests, all participants were
randomly assigned to three groups; aquatic
plyometric training group (n=15), land plyometric
training group (n=15), and control group (n=15).
The participants' characteristics are given in
Table 1.

2.2 Study Design

The study Protocol was conducted concurrently
with preseason volleyball training and all groups
participated in three session volleyball training in
a week (Sunday, Tuesday and Thursday). Each
session lasting approximately 120 min. typical
preseason volleyball training sessions consisted
of 1015 min warm-up exercises, followed by on
court skills training, tactical situations, and actual
game play. All volleyball sessions were directly
supervised by Karaj volleyball association
coaches who were informed about the study
procedures, but were blinded to group
assignment of the participants. Thus, the
coaches did not include any specific strength

training or high-intensity plyometric exercises as

part of the preseason volleyball training, other
than volleyball drills that required the players to
jump as part of the activity.
Aquatic and Land plyometric groups performed
plyometric exercises designed in water and mat
for the lower extremity, while the control group
did not participate in any type of plyometric
exercises. Control group were asked to
participate in regular volleyball training sessions
3 times per week, each session about 2 hours.
Both APG and LPG groups trained three times in
a week (Saturday, Monday, and Wednesday) for
8 weeks. Participants in the plyometric groups
performed three plyometric drills - ankle jump
with block form, squat jump with block form and
depth jump drills on a 3 cm mat. The training
protocol of this study is shown in Table 2. Depth
jump drill was executed upon 5 boxes with 30 cm
height, starting participants stand on the mat,
jumping over the first box on the floor, repeating
the same procedure on the others.
The APG program was conducted three times a
week for 8 weeks in a swimming pool with a
depth of approximately 120 cm and a
temperature of 28C. Each APG session lasted
approximately 45 min, and consisted of a warmup, APG, and cool-down, all performed in the
water. The warm-up consisted of approximately 5
min of light jogging in the water. The APG
exercises included spike approaches, single leg
bounding, squat jumps with blocking form, and
depth jumps [30]. The participants were
encouraged to perform all APG exercises in an
explosive manner, and to apply their maximal
effort on all maneuvers. The spike approaches,
single leg bounding performed with maximal
effort along the width of the pool (~15 m) two
times per session during the first and second
week, three times per session during third,
fourth, fifth and sixth weeks and four times per
session during seventh and eighth weeks of
training.

Table 1. Physical characteristics of participants (average mean SD)

Age (year)
Body Mass (kg)
Height (cm)
2
Body mass index (kg/m )
Sports experience (year)

CG (n=15)
19.612.79
76.733.01
191.873.20
20.934.24
3.800.68

APG (n=15)
18.201.02
77.532.85
190.534.51
21.753.26
4.200.68

LPG (n=15)
20.602.44
77.532.09
189.873.51
20.854.21
3.800.77

Total (n=45)
19.472.39
77.272.65
190.763.78
20.452.99
3.930.72

CG= control group, APG= aquatic plyometric group, LPG= land plyometric group

475

Fattahi et al.; JSRR, 4(5): 473-479, 2015; Article no.JSRR.2015.050

Table 2. Plyometric drills and sets for LPG

Training
weeks
1&2
3&4
5&6
7&8

Ankle
jump
15
15
15
15

Squat
jump
8
8
8
8

Depth
jump
5
5
5
5

fourth 9-m section, when the participants passed

a finish line time stopped by hand-held stopwatch
(CASIO HS-80TW). The best of 3 consecutive
trials was used for the statistical analysis.

Sets
3
4
5
6

2.5 Maximum Strength

LPG= land plyometric group

Bouts of continuous maximal squat jumps with

block form were performed 3 sets of 10-s of
continuous jumps during the first and second
weeks, four sets of 10-s during the third and
fourth weeks, 4 sets of 15-s in fifth and sixth
weeks and 4 sets of 20-s during weeks 7 and 8
with 30-s recovery periods between each sets. A
series of depth jumps were performed involving
three submerged boxes (45 cm in height) two
times per session during week 1 and 2, three
times per session for week 3 and 4, four times in
week 5 and 6 and five times in week 7 and 8.
The participants began the depth-jump circuit by
squat jumping from the pool floor onto the first
box, then squat jumping without hesitation as
high as possible and landing on the floor
between the first and second box, at which point
they immediately squat jumped as high as
possible, landing on the pool floor between
second and third box and continued this pattern
over the third submerged box. Participants
walked back to the beginning of the circuit and
after recovering for approximately 30 s, the
participants began the next interval. The cooldown period consisted of approximately 5 min of
walking in the water followed by static stretching
of the major muscle groups of the legs.

2.3 Testing Procedures

Biomechanical variables consisting Agility,
strength and power tests were measured by 4
9-m shuttle test, 1RM leg press and Standing
vertical jump test. Participants were tested pre
and post the 8-week training. All tests were
explained before performance by tester.

2.4 4 9-m Shuttle Run

The shuttle run test was included as a measure
of the ability to sprint and change direction. With
the 4 9-m shuttle run, participants stood behind
a starting line, on command, they started the 9-m
run. At the end of the 9-m section, participants
were asked to stop with 1 food beyond a marker
while reversing running direction and sprinting
back to the start where the same reversing of
movement direction was required. After the

The 1-RM leg press assesses the maximum

muscular strength of the major muscles of the
lower extremity. Warm-up consisted of a set of
five repetitions at the loads of ~40% of the
perceived maximum. Leg press test was
completed using standard leg press machine
(Gym Tech). Participants assuming a sitting
position with back on padded supported. On
command, the participant performed a concentric
extension (as fast as possible) of the leg muscles
starting from the flexed position to reach the full
extension of 180 against the resistance. Tester
alerted the participants when the starting and
finishing positions were
attained.
Each
participant was performed 3 maximal trails. Best
of three were considered as the maximum
weight, measured at pre and post 8-week
training.
Vertical jump test was done according to
SARGENT Standard Test. First, correct process
of measurement was described for participants
and they warmed up completely to perform the
test. Participant stands side on to a wall and
reaches up with the hand closest to the wall.
Keeping the feet flat on the ground, the point of
the fingertips is marked or recorded. This is
called the standing reach height. Then stands
away from the wall, and jumps vertically as high
as possible using both arms and legs to assist in
projecting the body upwards. Attempt to touch
the wall at the highest point of the jump. The
difference in distance between the standing
reach height and the jump height is the score.
The best of three attempts is recorded.

2.6 Statistical Analyses

All data are presented as mean SD. One-way
analyses of variance (ANOVA) and Paired t test
were used to determine significant differences
among the APG, LPG, and control groups and to
identify any significant differences between the
groups at the pre and post tests for the
dependent variables at P 0.05, respectively.

3. RESULTS
No injuries occurred throughout the study period,
and the testing and training procedures were well
tolerated by the participants.

476

Fattahi et al.; JSRR, 4(5): 473-479, 2015; Article no.JSRR.2015.050

Biomechanical variables of participants are

shown in Table 3.
Results of ANOVA test (significant level) were F
(0.05,2,42)= 6.221 (0.001), 5.14 (0.000) and 3.99
(0.001) for agility, leg press and vertical jump
respectively.
Results
showed
significant
differences between all variables in APG and
LPG comparing to CG.
No significant differences between APG, LPG
and CG groups at pre test. Significant differences
were observed in all variables between results of
LPG and APG comparing to CG at post test.
There were significant differences in variables
improvement in APG comparing to CG, as well
as improvement in LPG comparing to CG except
agility test. Also there were significant differences
between ATP and LPG results comparing
together (p<0.05).
No significant changes were observed in the
control group in any of the variables tested
either. APG group showed significant differences
in all variables (Agility ~10%, leg strength
~17.5% and vertical jump ~28%) in LPG group,
significant differences were observed in leg
strength (~7%) and vertical jump (~10.5%)
although agility records was improved ~0.2%
insignificantly, (p<0.05).

4. DISCUSSION
The present study examined the effect of 8
weeks of aquatic and land plyometric training on
some biomechanical variables including strength,
agility, and power performance in junior male
volleyball players. Our hypothesis that the
addition of APG and LPG to traditional volleyball
training would lead to greater enhancements in
biomechanical variables were supported, as APG
resulted in a significantly larger improvement in
all variables as well as LPG except for agility
(p<0.05).
Numerous studies reported that plyometric
training, weight training and complex training can

improve of strength performance [3,12,21,31]. To

our knowledge, few studies have addressed the
effects of APG on strength performance.
Robinson et al. [26] examined the effects of 8
weeks of land-based plyometrics and APG on
vertical in physically fit college-aged women, not
all of the women were currently involved in sports
requiring the presence of significant leg power
and jumping ability, such as volleyball or
basketball. Although the participants in the
present study were significantly younger than in
the study by Robinson et al. our findings coincide
with and extend the findings of Robinson et al.
[26] in that APG can induce significant
improvements in vertical jump for male athletes
who are undergoing concurrent sports training.
Martel et al. [7] reported significant increase in
vertical jump of young volleyball players following
a 6-weeks training programs which was
combination of Aquatic plyometric training and
volleyball training. Arazi and Asadi (2011)
reported significant improvement in physical
performance of junior basketball players after 8weeks of Aquatic and land plyometric training
[31].
Shiran et al. [28] reported that 5 weeks of APG
and LPG improved leg muscle strength in male
wrestlers.
Results of our study are in agreement with
mentioned studies, although there were
differences in gender, age and training sessions
of samples. Perhaps nature of volleyball training
and responses of young athletes to the volleyball
training are of the main reasons. There must be
neural adaptation of nervous system which
contributes to increase in explosive power and
strength following plyometric training programs.
This improvement also would be affected by
loads and repetitions of plyometric training
sessions.
High intensity plyometric training would increase
muscle coordination as well as contraction ability
of muscles in Stretch-shortening cycle which
finally lead to enhancement in vertical jump [30].

Table 3. Biomechanical variables of participants (Average Mean SD)

APG
LPG
CG

4 9 Agility test (sec.)

Pre
post
9.330.38 8.370.43*
9.30.42
9.280.43
9.270.39 9.280.42

1 RM leg press (kg)

pre
post
201.676.73
23711.62*
*
200.3310.26 214.3313.35
198.679.35
200.6710.83

Vertical jump (cm)

pre
post
41.932.76 53.733.84*
*
43.732.72 48.072.54
42.073.59 43.144.00

CG= control group, APG= aquatic plyometric group, LPG= land plyometric group, * Significant difference from the
pre test, . Significant differences from CG post test

477

Fattahi et al.; JSRR, 4(5): 473-479, 2015; Article no.JSRR.2015.050

Jumping ability in product of force and velocity

and hence muscular strength is a key parameter
in improvement of jumping ability. Maybe
increase in motor unit recruitment in agonist and
antagonist muscles in another reason of
improvement of physical performance following
plyometric training, due to strength increase.

5.

6.

7.
Increase in agility performance is also evident in
our study, in agreement by other similar
investigations [10,15,16,31,32]. Here again
frequency and load of training would be effective
in results. Agility is composed of rapid and high
force movements, acceleration and deceleration
as well as changing direction. Perhaps, nature of
plyometric training including eccentric strength
which is the main part of agility and promotion of
this phase through plyometric training would be
the main reason of agility improvement [33].

8.

9.

5. CONCLUSION
10.
The present study indicates that 8 weeks
program of APG and LPG can produce
significant increases in some biomechanical
variables such as agility, leg power and strength
in young male volleyball players. In addition,
because athletes can perform high-intensity
plyometric exercises in water, it is proposed that
APG could provide similar benefits as land-based
plyometrics, but with lower risk of muscle
soreness and/or overtraining.

11.

12.

COMPETING INTERESTS
Authors have
interests exist.

declared

that

no

competing

13.

REFERENCES
1.

2.

3.

4.

Canavan PK, Vescovi JD. Evaluation of

power prediction equations: Peak vertical
jumping power in women. Med Sci Sports
Exerc. 2004;36:158993.
Potteiger JA, Lockwood RH, Haub MD.
Muscle power and fiber characteristics
following 8 weeks of plyometric training. J
Strength Cond Res. 1999;13:275279.
Bobbert MF. Drop jumping as a training
method for jumping ability. Sports Med.
1990;9:722.
Kraemer WJ, Mazzetti SA, Nindl BC. Effect
of resistance training on women's
strength/power
and
occupational
performances. Med Sci Sports Exerc.
2001;33:101125.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

478

Bassey EJ, Fiatarone MA, O'Neill EF. Leg

extensor
power
and
functional
performance in very old men and women.
Clinical Sci (Lond). 1992;82:321327.
Milic V, Nejic D, Kostic R. The effect of
plyometric training on the explosive. Facta
University. 2008;6:169-179.
Martel GF, Harmer ML, Logan JM, Parker
CB. Aquatic Plyometric Training Increases
vertical jump in female volleyball players.
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2005;37:1814-1819.
Gehri DJ, Richard MD, Kleiner DM,
Kirkendall DT. A comparison of plyometric
training techniques for improving vertical
jump ability and energy production. J
Strength Cond Res. 1998;12:85-89.
Paul E, Jeffry AP, Mathew WH, John PT,
Michael JC, Robert HL. Effects of
plyometric training and recovery on vertical
jump performance and anaerobic power. J
Strength Cond Res. 2003;17:704-709.
Matavulj D, Kukolj M, Ugarkovic D, Tihanyi
S. Effects of plyometric training on jumping
performance in junior basketball players. J
Sports Med Physic Fitness. 2001;41:159164.
Wilkerson G, Colston A, Short I, Neal K,
Hoewischer PJ, Pixley J. Neuromuscular
changes in female collegiate athletes
resulting from a plyometric jump-training
program. J Athl Training. 2004;39:1723.
Wilson GJ, Murphy AJ, Giorgi A. Weight
and plyometric training: Effects on
eccentric and concentric force production.
Canad J Appl Physiol. 1996;21:30115.
Myer GD, Ford KR, Brent JL. The effects
of plyometric and dynamic stabilization and
balance training on power, balance, and
landing force in female athletes. J Strength
cond Res. 2006;20:34553.
Harrison
AJ,
Gaffney
S.
Motor
development and gender effects on
stretching-shortening cycle performance. J
Sci Med Sports. 2001;4:406-415.
Hennessy L, Kilty J. Relationship of the
stretch-shortening
cycle
to
spring
performance in trained female athletes. J
Strength Cond Res. 2001;15:326-331.
Rimmer E, Sleivert G. Effects of a
plyometric intervention program on sprint
performance. J Strength Cond Res.
2000;14:295-301.
Hewett TE, Stroupe AL, Nance TA, Noyes
FR. Plyometric training in female athletes.
Am J Sports Med. 1996;24:765-773.
Chimera N, Swanik K, Swanik C, Straub S.
Effects of plyometric training on muscle-

Fattahi et al.; JSRR, 4(5): 473-479, 2015; Article no.JSRR.2015.050

activation strategies and performance in 26. Robinson LE, Dcor ST, Merrick MA,
female athletes. J Athl Train. 2004;39:24
Buckworth J. The effects of land vs.
31.
aquatic plyometrics on power, torque,
19. Heidt RS, Sweeterman L, Carlonas R,
velocity, and muscle soreness in women. J
Traub A, Tekulve F. Avoidance of soccer
Strength Cond Res. 2004;18:84-91.
injuries with preseason conditioning. Am J 27. Stemm JD, Jacobsen BH. Comparison of
Sports Med. 2000;28:659662.
land and aquatic based plyometric training
20. Turner AM, Owings M, Schwane JA.
on vertical jump. J Strength Cond Res.
Improvement in running economy after 6
2007;21:568-571.
weeks of plyometric training. J Strength 28. Shiran MY, Kordi MR, Ziaee V, Ravasi AA,
Cond Res. 2003;17:60-67.
Mansournia MA. The effect of aquatic and
21. Adams K, O'shea JP, O'shea KL, Climstein
land plyometric training on physical
M. The effect of six weeks of squat,
performance and muscular enzymes in
plyometrics and squat-plyometric training
male wrestlers. Res J Bio Sci S.
on power production. J Appl Sport Sci Res.
2008;3:457-461.
1996;6:36-41.
29. Miller MG, Berry DC, Bullard S, Gilders R.
22. Jamuratas
AZ,
Fatouros
LG,
Comparisons of land based and aquaticBuckenmeyer P. Effects of plyometric
based plyometric programs during an 8exercise on muscle soreness and plasma
week training period. J Sports Rehab.
creatinekinase levels and its comparison
2002;11:268-283.
with eccentric and concentricexercise. J 30. Maffiuletti NA, Dugnani S, Folz M, DI
Strength Cond Res. 2000;14:6874.
Pierno E. Effects of combined electro
23. Grantham, N. Plyometrics and sports
stimulation and plyometric training on
injures-spinal shrinkage, patellar tendinitis,
vertical jump height. Med Sci Sports Exerc.
lower limbs injuries, heel-pad bruising, shin
2002;34:1638-44.
splints and stress fractures. Sports Injury 31. Arazi H, Asadi A. The effect of aquatic and
Bulletin; 2006.
land plyometric training on strength, sprint,
24. Miyama M, Nosaka K. Influence of surface
and balance in young basketball players, J
on muscle damage and soreness induced
human Sports & Exerc. 2011;6(1):101-111.
by consecutive drop jumps. J Strength 32. Potach DH, Chu DA. Plyometric training.
cond Res. 2004;18:206-221.
In: Essentials of Strength Training and
25. Impellizzeri FM, Rampinin E, Castagna C,
Conditioning.
Baechle,
T.
R.
Martino F, Fiorini S, Wisloff U. Effect of
(Ed.).Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
plyometric training on sand versus grass
1994;431436.
on muscle soreness and jumping and 33. Sheffard JM, Young W. Agility literature
sprinting ability in soccer players. Br J
review: Classification, training and testing.
Sports Med. 2008;42:42-46.
J Sports Sci. 2006;24(9):919-932.
_______________________________________________________________________________
2015 Fattahi et al.; This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited.

Peer-review history:
The peer review history for this paper can be accessed here:
http://www.sciencedomain.org/review-history.php?iid=744&id=22&aid=6799

479